ArticleHuman brain mapping2025
Toward Personalized Neuroscience: Evaluating Individual-Level Information in Neural Mass Models.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Toward Personalized Neuroscience: Evaluating Individual-Level Information in Neural Mass Models.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Macroscale brain modeling using neural mass models (NMMs) offers a framework for simulating human whole-brain dynamics. These models are pivotal for investigating the brain as a complex dynamic system, exploring phenomena like bifurcations, oscillatory patterns, and responses to stimuli. While connectome-based NMMs allow for the creation of personalized NMMs, their utility in capturing individual-specific neural characteristics remains underexplored, with current studies constrained by small sample sizes and computational inefficiencies. To address these limitations, we employed an algorithmically differentiable version of the reduced Wong Wang (RWW) model, enabling efficient optimization for large datasets. Applying this to resting-state fMRI data from 1444 samples, we optimized models with varying parameter complexities (n = 4, 658, and 23,875), which were derived from creating biologically plausible model variants. The optimized models achieved 4%, 19%, and 56% variance explanation in empirical functional connectivity (FC), respectively. Subject identification accuracy, based on simulated FC patterns, improved from < 1% (n = 4) to almost 100% (n = 23,875). Despite this precision, individual-level correlations between model parameters and attributes like age, gender, or intelligence quotient were small (effect sizes:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.